Cheesecake robot. How far is too far?

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

I can't know that. I believe it's worth the try

Approach a team with...
"We have an idea for the robot and the materials but we haven't tested it at all we would like to run this untested robot instead of your robot."

That'll turn some heads.

[logank013]

This has definitely been a topic before on our team but hasn't been discussed a lot. I won't talk about others on my team's views but I will talk about mine.
Basically, I believe the the line has been crossed when it forces a main component of the robot to be unfunctional.
Example: a team has spent 3 or 4 weeks developing their shooter. Despite shooter capability, it is wrong to make them stick a PVC pipe in front of it allowing them to not be able to shoot a boulder.
Cheesecaking is fine when you are adding to it but as soon as you take something away, despite how much you added, you are telling them that their robot isn't good in that part you took away. Does this make sense? Despite our team being an alliance captain much of the time these last two years, I never see our team Cheesecaking and alliance partner's robot. It is fine to a slight extent but most first teams who do it want to cross the line. Unfortunately, there is no rule against it.

[jwfoss]

I would advocate that if you think you have the time and are willing to put the effort into building a second robot at an event for a potential alliance partner, your time would be better spent helping those teams at the event that need it most. Raising the floor will give you more options come alliance selection time, and improve the event for everyone.

[Sperkowsky]

I do not see an issue with it. If that team gets to win now because of the robot you gave them that is great.

[Lil' Lavery]

Why not borrow a team shirt from the team you drafted and have your back-up driver drive the bot you built for them, as well? The drafted team still get to win, right?

Originally Posted by jwfoss

I would advocate that if you think you have the time and are willing to put the effort into building a second robot at an event for a potential alliance partner, your time would be better spent helping those teams at the event that need it most. Raising the floor will give you more options come alliance selection time, and improve the event for everyone.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to jwfoss again"

[IronicDeadBird]

If you have the resources for another robot practice bots are always nice.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

It's going to be one of those annual threads like the mentor build vs. Student build, Regionals vs. Districts, and Mentor vs. Student Drive coaches. Unsurprisingly, all of those topics have been discussed in the last 3 days.

You left out the topic of 6 Week Build Schedule vs No Build Schedule Restrictions.

[CJ_Elliott]

I think conversation comes down to some people think that it would be fine or don't care and some do care. Personally, I think it should be between the teams to decide whether or not to take the cheesecake bot. IMO everyone that isn't those teams should mind their own, if you are against having your team change robots then don't. Simple as that.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Why not borrow a team shirt from the team you drafted and have your back-up driver drive the bot you built for them, as well? The drafted team still get to win, right?

A couple of years ago we witnessed a team do exactly this but with a human player instead of a driver. We lost a regional because of it. More specifically, the other alliance gained a huge advantage since they had two human players who could load their own robot.

A couple of our students were quite mad/frustrated with me that I would not contest it but winning or replaying matches because the other side broke the rules is not how we want to win. From our reading that year, the rules actually prohibited this and have since. Notice that I said "the rules" and not the "spirit of the rules" or "spirit of FIRST".

But hey, what do I know about cheesecaking?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by marshall

But hey, what do I know about cheesecaking?

I have interpreted this line (and others like it) to implicitly mean "we've been cheesecaked, we liked it, therefor it MUST be good and ALL teams should like it." Can you tell me if I have interpreted that incorrectly? If so, can you clarify what you mean by it?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I have interpreted this line (and others like it) to implicitly mean "we've been cheesecaked, we liked it, therefor it MUST be good and ALL teams should like it." Can you tell me if I have interpreted that incorrectly? If so, can you clarify what you mean by it?

I meant that I had derailed the thread slightly and was trying to put the train back on track but you can take my post however you'd like to.

[Taylor]

Conceptually, I am firmly against cheesecaking, for many reasons I won't bother to list here.

Then I think about 2013, when we completely rebuilt our robot at INTH, with the help of another team who gave us parts and labor that helped us immensely, and we told the judges about it and this team won the GP award at the event, and we were by the letter of the definition the recipients of cheesecake.

So my personal conclusion is the same that I've reached across many other false dichotomies in our landscape - student v mentor built, child v adult coach, etc.

If it works for that team in that situation, then good for them.

[GreyingJay]

To me it comes down to the mindset of the receiving team. Did they want cheesecake? Did they expect cheesecake?

"We were in trouble and team XYZ saved the day by giving us their ABC (or helping us make ABC with their resources)" - awesome. Super GP, teamwork, good for everyone involved.

"We were in trouble so we approached team XYZ and offered our drive base as a platform to build an awesome alliance strategy involving harpoonsABC" - also cool.

"We were picked by team XYZ but it turns out all they wanted was something they could attach their ABC to. We didn't even get to use our own" - not awesome. Not GP. Good for the cheesecaking team but not exactly morale boosting for the receiving team.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

"We were picked by team XYZ but it turns out all they wanted was something they could attach their ABC to. We didn't even get to use our own" - not awesome. Not GP. Good for the cheesecaking team but not exactly morale boosting for the receiving team.

Different strokes for different folks.

Any time I've selected a team, their role is always discussed prior to selection and roles are always agreed upon. Most teams have enough mutual respect to discuss these things.

What boosts morale for one team versus what might boost yours don't have to be the same...

[taaha_alidrisi]

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

whether or not it is within the rules, it would be neither gracious nor professional to imply that their robot was worthless by giving them a completely different one

it would also be a poor allocation of your pit space and resources, IMO

I've seen powerhouses teams help out the 3rd robot in their alliance by giving them major mechanisms but to respect their hard work and effort during the construction you should keep it at that mere minimum.

In addition, it's not a mere cheesecake robot if it's a full robot (in the 30lbs or not). Investing that money for other expenses would be the most beneficial decision.